Election 2020

[madducks]

WTF is Nevada doing??? Count the damn votes already.

Waiting for the bookies to give them the ok to proceed with the count.

[madducks]

I just found this one from October:

[revo]

Meanwhile, the stock market is soaring on the likelihood of a split government. But, but, but, my 401k is supposed to be crashing!!!

[revo]

In Michigan, crowds of Trumptards are screaming "Stop the vote!" while in Arizona, crowds of Trumptards are screaming "Count that vote!" C'mon Trumptards, pick a side!

[frae]

Michigan is up to almost a 3 point lead for Biden in case anyone is still checking, there won't be any recount there.

[Judge Jude]

Meanwhile, the stock market is soaring on the likelihood of a split government. But, but, but, my 401k is supposed to be crashing!!!

need a cite for anyone on Earth who thought that a split government would lead to the stock market/401K to be crashing.

[Ken]

need a cite for anyone on Earth who thought that a split government would lead to the stock market/401K to be crashing.

From the debate:

"They say the stock market will boom if I'm elected. If he's elected, the stock market will crash" - Donald Trump

[Judge Jude]

well, I need a quote that says that a split government would lead to 401ks to be crashing. so I will continue to wait, I guess.

[Ken]

well, I need a quote that says that a split government would lead to 401ks to be crashing. so I will continue to wait, I guess.

You are somehow misunderstanding the post you quoted.

Biden looks to be the winner, yet somehow, despite promises that the market would crash with Biden elected, the market is going up. Revo is doing you the favor of citing why the market isn't crashing, it's the split government that's pushing it up. He's not implying that someone suggested a split gov't would cause a crash, rather that the suggestions that a Biden election would crash the market were asinine.

[chancellor]

well, I need a quote that says that a split government would lead to 401ks to be crashing. so I will continue to wait, I guess.

In fairness to revo, I expect he's referring to all the "sky is falling" chat among investors if Biden were elected. As others have indirectly noted on the board, it's been pretty well implied that if Biden did win, the Senate would come with him. All polling indicated the Senate changing was even more of a slam dunk than Biden winning would be.

And I can't speak to media quotes, but I can confirm numerous major investment groups were recommending moving to safer investment havens back in the June timeframe.

[Judge Jude]

all of that is understood - and none of it has anything to do with split government.

there were numerous asinine predictions that a Trump election in 2016 would cause 401Ks to crash - most noticeably, Nancy Pelosi and NYT columnist Paul Krugman (the market rose about 30 to 35 percent in the next year).

I'm looking for anyone who referred to split government and the resulting market. and if we stipulate that there was a claim that a Biden election presumably would not also result in a split government, than such claims are irrelevant - the non-split government angle didn't happen.

it might be worth wondering why a split government is seen as favorable by the stock market.

[revo]

need a cite for anyone on Earth who thought that a split government would lead to the stock market/401K to be crashing.

Trump tweeted hundreds of times that simply put, Dems taking the White House would lead to a stock market crash and economic depression. Period. End of story.

[Ken]

I give up

I mean, when you are asking for citations to back up an opinion no one ever had or suggested existed, this was the only reasonable conclusion to it.

An "oops I'm sorry I misunderstood Revo" would suffice, but that's taboo these days I know.

[chancellor]

all of that is understood - and none of it has anything to do with split government.

there were numerous asinine predictions that a Trump election in 2016 would cause 401Ks to crash - most noticeably, Nancy Pelosi and NYT columnist Paul Krugman (the market rose about 30 to 35 percent in the next year).

I'm looking for anyone who referred to split government and the resulting market. and if we stipulate that there was a claim that a Biden election presumably would not also result in a split government, than such claims are irrelevant - the non-split government angle didn't happen.

it might be worth wondering why a split government is seen as favorable by the stock market.

Well, let's unpack this a bit.

1. As revo accurately notes, there's been repeated social media, ads, and campaign speeches that more than Trump indicate loss of the White House would result in major stock market losses. Now that may just be campaign posturing, but the statements are out there in force.
2. I can't come up with a poll reference, right, left or center, that pointed to a loss of the White House and the GOP keeping the Senate. I'm open to challenge on this one, but none of the ones I followed - from Nate to RCP to the major stations and newspapers to Rasmussen to Trafalgar - came up with that outcome.
3. So, expecting a quote on a concept that no one really considered possible is pretty unrealistic.

Per the market liking THIS split government (which, I'll add, is far, far from a sure thing, as I'm not convinced yet the GOP holds the Senate), it's likely driven by two factors: first, a consideration that the outcome appears to be fairly stable. Unlike the media which appears to be terrified to make calls, it's pretty clear Biden has the presidency in the bag, and the Senate elections will be pretty clear once the counts are done, other than possibly Perdue in Georgia. Second, I'd expect THIS split government is perceived as mitigating the worst outcomes of each party if given absolute power.

[Sour Masher]

While on the subject of markets, and maybe this deserves a new thread, but my effort to have a balanced portfolio with value stocks as well as growth stocks has really hurt my modest (late start) portfolio these last few years, especially this year. I keep holding the line, but the difference between my growth stocks and value stocks is really stark--my growth fund is way up on the year and my value one is way negative, with a net result of stagnation. I keep lamenting all the extra I'd have if I'd just gone 100% growth. I have read that finally, my value stocks would do something good after the election, because historically value stocks do better right after an election. But will that still be the case? So far my growth stocks are doing even better and my value stocks keep being poop. My value stock mutual fund is down 10% on the year while my growth stock one is up over 25%. I know it is long term that these things are supposed to play out, but basically every since I started have a portfolio at all, growth stocks have totally obliterated value stocks. My modest portfolio would probably be 50% greater if I just put everything into growth stocks and kept them there over the last 10 years. I keep waiting for the rebalances to pay off with an upswing in value stocks, but it keeps never happening. Everything in my portfolio except growth stocks has been poop. Value, mid-cap, small-cap, all poop.